I'm sorry but you said "but I don't think that nVidia has every promoted any card, much less the 970 to be a card that was designed to be used in SLi.", so I simply pointed the existence of dual GPU cards. And thank you for sharing your buying preferences with us, duly noted.

Also, I think that like all their cards, they say that it can work in SLi CrossFire, but as everyone knows, the second card will be at a reduced effectiveness ... and they didn't say how much or why the reduction was. See how that works? The implication was people should expect performance degradation since it's common knowledge that SLi scaling isn't perfect along with various other issues, and it didn't necessarily matter what the root cause was or the magnitude of the degradation. Well by the same token, it's common knowledge that frame pacing hasn't been fixed for DX9 games, so people should run CF at their own peril.

SLI works on 970s, just as long as you stay below 3.5 on the 970. If you go above the 3.5GB on the 970, you will have issues, regardless if it's a single card or 2 or 3 or 4 of them. It works on up to 4GB on 980s in SLi too without problem ... like I said, but you are apparently are too ignorant to understand this. The only issue is one card, and it doesn't matter what version of DirectX you are using or if it's one card or more.

Compare this to ALL DirectX 9 games and ALL AMD cards. People who are intellectually honest, will see the difference.

Having said that, you have finally proven yourself to be worthy of being added to the ignore list once and for all.

SLI works on 970s, just as long as you stay below 3.5 on the 970. If you go above the 3.5GB on the 970, you will have issues, regardless if it's a single card or 2 or 3 or 4 of them. It works on up to 4GB on 980s in SLi too without problem ... like I said, but you are apparently are too ignorant to understand this.

Oh, yeah. Ignorance is definitely the problem.

Somehow I seem to remember seeing 4gb on the box when I bought my card. But in your defense I guess my reading ability isn't quite up to the high standards of Nvidia lovers (fanboys) standards.

My boxes said 4gb, Afterburner says 4gb and every game I play (that shows available vram) says 4gb. I thought the issue was that not all 4gb available is equal, .5 gb is slower than the other 3.5 gb? Either way, it hasn't caused any problems for me even when i run 4k DSR.

My boxes said 4gb, Afterburner says 4gb and every game I play (that shows available vram) says 4gb. I thought the issue was that not all 4gb available is equal, .5 gb is slower than the other 3.5 gb? Either way, it hasn't caused any problems for me even when i run 4k DSR.

The issue is the way they did it. Its not a true 4gb card like other cards on the market. It may work fine most of the time, but we did not get what we paid for. We didn't get what was advertised. For me, it just left a bad taste in my mouth. Its not enough to keep me from buying an Nvidia card like the 980ti because the 980ti is a fantastic card. But if the box says 4gb I want it to be 4gb. Not some silly 3.5 + whatever crap ram they decided to toss in there to make it a technical 4gb. So I guess we can come to market with a 2gb card add 10gb of slow, pathetic, useless RAM and say we have a 12gb card. Seems there might be an issue with doing that don't you think? I do. What they did was market positioning and they did it underhandedly and the consumers padded their pockets as a result of their cheap move.

In my book, its false advertising. And I'm not saying AMD has never done anything similar before either, they have their own record of screwing us over themselves. So I'm no Nvidia hater at all, if my sig doesn't make that clear enough. Too bad I hadn't bought my card at Amazon. I bought mine at MC and asked to return it. Which I was answered with a promt NO. I don't blame them, they're just the man in the middle, but I would have liked to get my money back and get something which was closer to what I thought I was getting when plunking down my hard earned cash.

But I guess all of this shouldn't bother me right? Get over it some say. Well, they can get over it. I plan to spend a bit slower now making sure this doesn't happen again. Which is why I haven't bought a furyx already as the voltage is still not unlocked. I won't buy either it or a 980ti until I know how they compare when the FuryX is unlockable and the results are in for 980ti OC vs. FuryX (unlocked) OC on 4k.

SLI works on 970s, just as long as you stay below 3.5 on the 970. If you go above the 3.5GB on the 970, you will have issues, regardless if it's a single card or 2 or 3 or 4 of them. It works on up to 4GB on 980s in SLi too without problem ... like I said, but you are apparently are too ignorant to understand this. The only issue is one card, and it doesn't matter what version of DirectX you are using or if it's one card or more.

Compare this to ALL DirectX 9 games and ALL AMD cards. People who are intellectually honest, will see the difference.

Having said that, you have finally proven yourself to be worthy of being added to the ignore list once and for all.

You used the following to defend the 970:

Quote:

I think that like all their cards, they say that it can work in SLi, but as everyone knows, the second card will be at a reduced effectiveness ... and they didn't say how much or why the reduction was.

I simply made the observation that by changing just one word (SLi to CrossFire), one could flip the table and use the same kind of slippery slope logic to excuse AMD's not fixing the frame pacing issue in DX9 games. If you can't comprehend why that's a terrible defense then that's not my problem. As far as intellectual honesty goes, pot calling the kettle black much?

As an aside: I'm quite amused that some people here take pride in saying "welcome to the ignore list" as if it was some kind of huge achievement.

Somehow I seem to remember seeing 4gb on the box when I bought my card. But in your defense I guess my reading ability isn't quite up to the high standards of Nvidia lovers (fanboys) standards.

Whatever man... whatever...

And guess what, it has 4GB. It's all usable. It just stutters when you go above 3.5GB ... but make no mistake, it is ALL THERE.

So yeah ... "Whatever man... whatever..."

Quote:

Originally Posted by battleaxe

The issue is the way they did it. Its not a true 4gb card like other cards on the market. It may work fine most of the time, but we did not get what we paid for. We didn't get what was advertised.

Yes you did. You paid for 4GB and you got 4GB. It has an issue above 3.5GB but it's there. If you wanted a flawless system, then you should have paid twice as much and bought a 980.Edited by 47 Knucklehead - 11/6/15 at 12:07pm

And guess what, it has 4GB. It's all usable. It just stutters when you go above 3.5GB ... but make no mistake, it is ALL THERE.

So yeah ... "Whatever man... whatever..."
Yes you did. You paid for 4GB and you got 4GB. It has an issue above 3.5GB but it's there. If you wanted a flawless system, then you should have paid twice as much and bought a 980.

Great argument. Fantastic. LOL

Edit: Sorry. I don't mean to be a jerk with you. But is that what I bought at launch? Did they disclose that this card comes with .5gb of useless RAM? No. They didn't. Isn't that what I made clear bothered me? I believe I did. So why are pointing out the obvious? A 4gb card with only 3.5gb of usable RAM is not a 4gb card as we are accustomed to reading stated specs. Which means, its false advertising at least according to me. You don't have to agree. I'm not trying to convince you. I just pointed out why it bothered me, and I would think bothers others too. Clearly, this doesn't bother you... so good for you. We differ in opinions, I think that is fine. At least according to me. And like you, I think you are wrong to accept that what they did with the 970 was not okay. Its not okay with me, cause its not what I thought I was getting. (4gb of usable and all the same high bandwidth/speed RAM)

Really, why would I think anything different than the above? Why would I ever assume that a card has 3.5gb of fast ram and .5gb of crappy bottlecking crap strapped on like a boat anchor. Why would I or anyone else ever even think this when buying a new piece of hardware? It should have been clearly stated in the specs no matter if it were AMD or Nvidia pulling the dink move.Edited by battleaxe - 11/6/15 at 12:39pm

Yes you did. You paid for 4GB and you got 4GB. It has an issue above 3.5GB but it's there. If you wanted a flawless system, then you should have paid twice as much and bought a 980.

Just wow. I've heard many ridiculous arguments before, but this one takes the cake.

How about if nVidia was upfront about the memory partition, or advertised it as a 3.5GB card, I would've gladly waited an extra 2 weeks for the firesale on 290X? At one point they went for as low as $250, and even a 290X Lightning could be had for $300 on Newegg. B-b-but power, heat, efficiency, DX9 microstutter blah blah blah. Or since I didn't have a burning itch to upgrade at the time, I could've also waited until Black Friday deals, or for some 970 owners to panic dump their cards after the truth was revealed. This is what I meant about opportunity cost.

Nvidia apologised for the 0.5GB partition running slower than the 3.5GB partition in full public a year ago and people are still arguing about the card like it was february 2015. Everyone knows about the issue now, unless they lived in a cave for the last year. People still buy them despite of what all the keyboard warriors here at overclock say.

Or, how about this; I originally bought my 970 with intent to SLI it on my 4k display. Instead I bought another 290x later for $260. Now I plan to either add another 290x for Tri-fire on the 4k. So in my case at least this bonehead move cost Nvidia about $800 in sales volume. No big deal I know. I'm just one consumer. But my point was it bothered me, and I would think others as well. It was underhanded and dishonest in my view. Not that AMD is exempt from ever doing this sort of nonsense themselves, which I have clearly pointed out they have.

Point being; Nvidia should have made it right. But guess what, I still see "4gb" posted on the boxes at MC. So yeah, technically 4gb is there... and technically a Ferrari and Civic are the same cause they both have 4 wheels. Maybe I should start slapping Civic engines into Ferrari's and see what happens when my customers start figuring things out. Nah, they're too dumb to even notice.

Why do you care? You own a Ferrari right?... so what, its slow and only has 4 cylinders... its a Ferrari!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by iLeakStuff

Nvidia apologised for the 0.5GB partition running slower than the 3.5GB partition in full public a year ago and people are still arguing about the card like it was february 2015. Everyone knows about the issue now, unless they lived in a cave for the last year. People still buy them despite of what all the keyboard warriors here at overclock say.

Talk about beating a dead horse. Move on guys. Seriously

I have a hard time not enjoying beating dead horses. Its fun. Really, you should try it.